Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are not in the Constitution, they are in the writings of people like Jefferson and Madison who took the time to publish papers to explain to simpletons who are too stupid or lazy to educate themselves on law and philosophy the standards by which a government of, by, and for the people must be structured.
These standards were elementry to the founders of the country at that time, but they have become as hard to understand as rocket science for the idiot masses of today.
But apparently not important enough to put in the Constitution?
I guess that means you can find them in the Federalist Papers.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
To be honest I think they are more like Vampires, immortal blood sucking creatures that thrive on exploitation of those with less power and wealth then they have. Not to mention they both fear the daylight falling on them or their private affairs.
You maybe on to something there. They also hypnotize people and get them to do their bidding. They are actually undead though, not immortal.
While I appreciate your philosophical believes that is not how the Constitution actually works. The Constitution is first and foremost a document that outlines what the federal government is, how it functions, how it is selected, what powers it has, which branches have which powers, the role of federalism, and what assurances the federal government will give to the states and citizens. Most of the protections of individual rights come later in various amendments. The Constitution as originally drafted is very vague as to specific grants of individual rights. Most of that comes from the Amendments so to suggest that the Constitution was created mainly to protect individual rights is false. The Constitution was originally drafted as a means of protecting the autonomy of states while at the same time creating a national framework that was strong enough ensure a functioning and independent country.
Additionally any amendment passed by the processes outlined in article 5 is a valid part of the Constitution and supersedes previous language to the contrary, thus why the amendments like the 13th and 21st effectively void previous sections.
Simply put a duly approved Constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional. It is impossible since something in the Constitution by its nature cannot be Unconstitutional.
That's really not accurate at all ...
1) the purpose of the constitution is clearly stipulated in the preamble, which focuses the majority on the freedom, safety, and security of the people, as you can clearly read:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
2) later laws cannot "supercede" established laws. To supercede, or otherwise do away with previously established law, that law or language must be repealed. You don't simply operate on the on date of drafting to decide what law is relevant! This obvious truth is proved by the fact that laws can be deemed unconstitutional.
The constitution's theme and fundamental framework toward safeguarding liberty, ensuring separation of powers, etc., provides the baseline.
According to your way of thinking, a new ammendment could be added declaring Obama lord and king, while labeling the American citizens his sole property ... and you believe such a thing becomes constitutional based on no other criteria than being ratified? Absurd!
1) the purpose of the constitution is clearly stipulated in the preamble, which focuses the majority on the freedom, safety, and security of the people, as you can clearly read:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
2) later laws cannot "supercede" established laws. To supercede, or otherwise do away with previously established law, that law or language must be repealed. You don't simply operate on the on date of drafting to decide what law is relevant! This obvious truth is proved by the fact that laws can be deemed unconstitutional.
The constitution's theme and fundamental framework toward safeguarding liberty, ensuring separation of powers, etc., provides the baseline.
According to your way of thinking, a new ammendment could be added declaring Obama lord and king, while labeling the American citizens his sole property ... and you believe such a thing becomes constitutional based on no other criteria than being ratified? Absurd!
If you were to read the constitution you would see that article one is clearly about establishing the legislative branch directing its election, and outlining its powers, article 2 does the same for the executive branch and article 3 lays out the courts. Article four is on the relationship in duties between the federal government and the states and article 6 is about the supremacy of laws. The other articles deal with amendment and ratification.
The purpose of the constitution was to create a framework for federalism it is as simple as that. As to later amendments superseding I suggest you look up the definition of "amendment" the entire purpose is to change or alter a document, if amendments did not supersede contrary portions what would be the purpose of having them except to add terrible confusion.
Finally, however unlikely, if an amendment does say that it would be part of the constitution pursuant to article 5. A common problem is that certain people assign mystical qualities to the Constitution and come up with their own interpretations which they assign a religious like signifigence to. They also tend to treat those interpretations with a sense of infaillable perfection over time. That is not how the Constitution should be looked it, especially considering the presence of article 5. The Constitution is a governing document that by design may be altered as Congress and/or the states deem wise.
But apparently not important enough to put in the Constitution?
I guess that means you can find them in the Federalist Papers.
The founding fathers took for granite some things which they probably in hind sight should not have.
For one thing they probably never imagined the people would value their liberties so little as to allow sharletons to change the meanings of words in order to eliminate the freedoms which were won at such a high cost.
They also probably had no idea that despite the prosperity of the country that the intelegence and educational level of the people would sink to a point where people did not even understand the basic principals the country was founded on.
As this discussion proves, in order to preserve the rights and liberties of the people from the criminals in government and the corporate world, the Constitution should have been written as if it were being read by complete and utter idiots who needed every word defined as it was used at the time it was written.
...despite the prosperity of the country that the intelegence and educational level of the people would sink to a point where people did not even understand the basic principals the country was founded on.
Is parody, yes?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
